I know of no Christian who believes that God entirely "reduces" to the Bible. Only a moron would believe that. And Alamo-Girl is no moron. Thus your charge of circular logic is misplaced.
Metmom asked you to “Tell me how to validate His love for me and work in me in a way that is tangible to you.” The operative word here is “tangible.” I doubt this is possible. For God, eternal divine Being, at once transcendent and immanent, is utterly, ineffably intangible. God is utterly irreducible to the categories of human thought; God cannot be subjected to human “metrics,” in principle.
But this doesn’t mean that God is utterly unknowable, according to reason. Christianity is far more “reasonable” than you suppose. As evidence, I refer you to the ontological proofs developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. Yet my personal favorite “proof” of “the existence of God” is St. Anselm’s. It is not syllogistic in form; rather it is an invocative prayer or meditation of God considered under the aspect of a divine Name: “That than which nothing greater can be thought.” Anselm’s argument is laid out in Chapter 2 of the Proslogion. Jacob Holsinger Sherman (Partakers of the Divine, 2014) outlines Anselm’s argument as follows:
(1) God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.Sherman explains what is going on with this encounter of Anselm with God in apperceptive contemplation:
(2) The thought that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought can be understood.
(3) What is understood exists in the understanding.
(4) There is a difference between existing in the understanding and understanding something to exist in reality.
(5) What exists in the understanding may be understood to exist in reality.
(6) To exist in reality is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.
(7) That-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought cannot be thought to exist in the understanding alone.
(8) Therefore, that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists both in the understanding and in reality.
…God is by no means an object of our experience as other beings are — one thing among others in the furniture of the universe — but is in fact the mystery in whom we live, move, and have our being…. To understand this involves wrenching us free from our most characteristic habit of thought, which is the inclination to relate to reality according to the logic of solid bodies…. [T]here is an essential homology between such objectifying and the egological exercise of the will to power. Both moves define knowledge in terms of comprehension, utility, and predictability. But the contemplative Christian ascent involves the reshaping, by grace, of the human soul away from egoic manipulation to the wide-open space of abandonment to the Divine.This is the sort of thing that Alamo-Girl and metmom are testifying to from their own experience. Likewise, I so testify….
But I suspect that you do not regard witness testimony as qualified evidence of anything. Just as you seem to disparage the entire history of mankind which, everywhere at every time, has placed man’s relations with God and the Universe at the very forefront of human concern. I gather that sort of thing doesn’t qualify as any kind of evidence of "the existence of God" that you would find acceptable either.
At this point, I’ll spare you the “lecture” on the nabal — “the man who says in his heart, ‘there is no God’” — and simply close for now.
Thank you for writing, Thales Miletus.
” For God, eternal divine Being, at once transcendent and immanent, is utterly, ineffably intangible. God is utterly irreducible to the categories of human thought; God cannot be subjected to human “metrics,” in principle.” I like the way Jesus expressed that same truth in John 14, speaking to Phillip ...
I would think finding evidence for “the existence of God” is hardly a similar proposition to finding evidence of the existence of an apple (the fruit or the computer . . . either one).
Thanks for the beep. ; Thales Miletus; Alamo-Girl; metmom
Try explaining to a fish that he is wet.
I was asked what type of proof I will accept and IO am not trying to dodge the question, but I am just not sure.
I see that some of you have appealed to personal feelings and movements/incidents in your own life. I asked how that is different than the LDS that say they believe the Book Of Mormon.
I see that some of you have appealed to Thomas Aquinas and Anselm. Yet on other threads I lurk on the Catholics are called pagan.
When I look at the Christian idea of the Trinity I have to wonder how that is different than the story of Zeus, Apollo and his twin sister Artemis.
On the other hand if as Aristotle claimed the Universe has always existed there would be no need for god.< P>This coincides with some scientists that have claimed that the universe is expanding and will begin to contract when it reaches it's elastic limit. At that time it will contract to a singularity and the cycle will begin again.
I see so many contradictions in the religious, philosophical and scientific "proofs" that I know I will need to study this closely.
I want to assure you that I am not like some of the atheists who will engage in endless debate only to pull out the trump card of "God doesn't exist." I classify myself as an agnostic at this point I am unwilling to say that god either exists or does not exist. And to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart as to the proof I will accept I will know it when I see it.
Anselm's analysis is particularly helpful to those willing to reason it through. Thank you for bringing it to the table.
And thank you for your support, truly I never said nor believe that God entirely "reduces" to the Bible. Jeepers.
You and I have been in many discussions of this type over the years and our book Timothy addressees many of the issues directly in a dialogue with a composite of our correspondents.
As with the frog, one must look to see.